Jiaojiao Jiang

Xiaoxue Ren, Penghao Jiang, Kaixin Li et al.

Web applications are prime targets for cyberattacks as gateways to critical services and sensitive data. Traditional penetration testing is costly and expertise-intensive, making it difficult to scale with the growing web ecosystem. While language model agents show promise in cybersecurity, modern web applications demand visual understanding, dynamic content handling, and multi-step interactions that only computer-use agents (CUAs) can perform. Yet, their ability to discover and exploit vulnerabilities through graphical interfaces remains largely unexplored. We present HackWorld, the first framework for systematically evaluating CUAs' capabilities to exploit web application vulnerabilities via visual interaction. Unlike sanitized benchmarks, HackWorld includes 36 real-world applications across 11 frameworks and 7 languages, featuring realistic flaws such as injection vulnerabilities, authentication bypasses, and unsafe input handling. Using a Capture-the-Flag (CTF) setup, it tests CUAs' capacity to identify and exploit these weaknesses while navigating complex web interfaces. Evaluation of state-of-the-art CUAs reveals concerning trends: exploitation rates below 12% and low cybersecurity awareness. CUAs often fail at multi-step attack planning and misuse security tools. These results expose the current limitations of CUAs in web security contexts and highlight opportunities for developing more security-aware agents capable of effective vulnerability detection and exploitation.

Amrita Singh, H. Suhan Karaca, Aditya Joshi et al.

Despite advances in legal NLP, no comprehensive evaluation covering multiple legal-specific LLMs currently exists for contract classification tasks in contract understanding. To address this gap, we present an evaluation of 10 legal-specific LLMs on three English language contract understanding tasks and compare them with 7 general-purpose LLMs. The results show that legal-specific LLMs consistently outperform general-purpose models, especially on tasks requiring nuanced legal understanding. Legal-BERT and Contracts-BERT establish new SOTAs on two of the three tasks, despite having 69% fewer parameters than the best-performing general-purpose LLM. We also identify CaseLaw-BERT and LexLM as strong additional baselines for contract understanding. Our results provide a holistic evaluation of legal-specific LLMs and will facilitate the development of more accurate contract understanding systems.

Junchen Ding, Penghao Jiang, Zihao Xu et al.

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate ethically sensitive decisions, understanding their moral reasoning processes becomes imperative. This study presents a comprehensive empirical evaluation of 14 leading LLMs, both reasoning enabled and general purpose, across 27 diverse trolley problem scenarios, framed by ten moral philosophies, including utilitarianism, deontology, and altruism. Using a factorial prompting protocol, we elicited 3,780 binary decisions and natural language justifications, enabling analysis along axes of decisional assertiveness, explanation answer consistency, public moral alignment, and sensitivity to ethically irrelevant cues. Our findings reveal significant variability across ethical frames and model types: reasoning enhanced models demonstrate greater decisiveness and structured justifications, yet do not always align better with human consensus. Notably, "sweet zones" emerge in altruistic, fairness, and virtue ethics framings, where models achieve a balance of high intervention rates, low explanation conflict, and minimal divergence from aggregated human judgments. However, models diverge under frames emphasizing kinship, legality, or self interest, often producing ethically controversial outcomes. These patterns suggest that moral prompting is not only a behavioral modifier but also a diagnostic tool for uncovering latent alignment philosophies across providers. We advocate for moral reasoning to become a primary axis in LLM alignment, calling for standardized benchmarks that evaluate not just what LLMs decide, but how and why.